Madras High Court
Sundaramoorthi Nayanar vs Dhandapani on 11 November, 2024
Author: S.S.Sundar
Bench: S.S.Sundar
W.A.No.2903 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 11.11.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
AND
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
W.A.No.2903 of 2024
AND
C.M.P.No.21447 of 2024
Sundaramoorthi Nayanar .. Appellant
Vs.
1.Dhandapani
2.The Sub Registrar
Office of the Sub Registrar
Kaveripattinam
Krishnagiri District .. Respondents
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order
dated 28.08.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.24592 of 2024.
For Appellant : Mr.C.Jagadish
For 1st Respondent : Mrs.Reshmi Christy
For 2nd Respondent : Mr.B.Vijay
Additional Government Pleader
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by S.S.SUNDAR, J.)
This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge
dated 28.08.2024 passed in W.P.No.24592 of 2024.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. The 1st respondent herein filed a writ petition in W.P.No.24592 of 2024
for issuing a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order in the refusal
check slip dated 25.07.2024 passed by the Sub Registrar, while refusing to
register the sale deed dated 25.07.2024. Though the appellant was impleaded as
2nd respondent in the writ petition, it appears that the writ petition was disposed
of at the admission stage, without issuing notice to the appellant/ 2nd respondent.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in respect of the
subject property of the sale deed viz., survey No.179/9, patta passbook stands in
the name of the appellant. The learned counsel contended that the 1 st
respondent/writ petitioner derived title through one Govindaraj, who had
purchased the property vide document dated 10.06.1966. Referring to the
property that was conveyed in favour of the said Govindaraj, the learned
counsel for the appellant contended that the said property falls in survey
No.179/7 and not the property to which the appellant has got title and obtained
patta.
4. It is also the case of the appellant that taking advantage of a
compromise decree and a mistake in the survey field mentioned in the
compromise decree dated 19.10.1967, the 1st respondent/writ petitioner claim
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
title to the property in survey No.179/9. The property is also the subject matter
of another suit in O.S.No.406 of 2022 pending on the file of the Principal
District Court, Krishnagiri.
5. Having regard to the nature of contentions and the fact that the
appellant is the registered land owner and patta stands in his name, this Court is
of the view that the appellant is also to be heard before disposing of the writ
petition. The 1st respondent/writ petitioner cannot insist the Sub Registrar to
register the document without perusing the patta stands in the name of the
executant, by virtue of Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Act, 1983.
This Court, without going into the merits of the contentions raised by the
parties, set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and remit the matter to
the learned Single Judge for passing orders after hearing the 1st respondent/writ
petitioner.
With the above direction, this writ appeal is disposed of. No costs.
Connected C.M.P. is closed.
[S.S.S.R.,J.] [P.D.B., J.]
Index : Yes/No 11.11.2024
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
gya
S.S.SUNDAR, J.
AND
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
P.DHANABAL, J.
gya
To
The Sub Registrar
Office of the Sub Registrar
Kaveripattinam
Krishnagiri District
11.11.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
